Congressional Reform

New House budget rules take three steps forward but one big step backAlan D. Viard | The Hill The House recently voted to adopt the new Democratic leadership’s proposed rules for the 116th Congress. Two of the rule changes may slightly improve the long-run budget outlook, and another may help avert debt-limit showdowns. But one change takes a clear step backward.

The congressional budget process: A brief primerJames C. Capretta | AEI Economic Perspectives The modern budget process has been amended in several important ways since its establishment in 1974, including the introduction of caps for appropriated spending and a pay-as-you-go rule for taxes and entitlements, both of which are enforced with automatic cuts in spending if they are violated. James Capretta argues that the current process was written for a time when appropriations spending was dominant; it does not work as well with so much of the federal budget devoted to spending that occurs automatically on entitlement programs. Further, the current process does not facilitate executive-legislative agreement on budgetary aggregates, which is an important reason for instability and uncertainty in federal finances.

The Congressional budget process is a dysfunctional mess. Lawmakers often juggle a series of continuing resolutions and occasional government shutdowns until finally crafting a single omnibus appropriations bill well into the next fiscal year. That 2,000-page, trillion-dollar bill is then quickly passed before lawmakers can read it and before outsiders can expose the gimmicks. Read more here....

Annual budget deficits are projected to soon surpass $1 trillion, on their way to $2 trillion or even $3 trillion in 10 to 15 years. Social Security and Medicare face a combined $100 trillion cash deficit over the next 30 years, which would push the national debt to nearly 200% of the gross domestic product (GDP). At that point, interest on that debt would consume 40% of all tax revenues—or more, if interest rates rise. Unless reforms are enacted, global markets will, at some point, stop lending to the U.S. at plausible interest rates.Read more here....

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, along with other single-payer advocates, has argued that the federal government could cover all Americans’ medical needs for much less than they currently spend privately. Much attention has focused on the impact of dramatically reducing payments to health-care providers, and on the magnitude of the tax increases involved. But “Medicare for All” would also lead to an enormous redistribution among states — cutting the health-care resources available to Sanders’s state by almost a third. Read more here....

James Capretta explores the rise of the administrative state and the corresponding decline in power of the legislative branch, explaining that Congress' persistent failure to properly fulfill the role of checking the executive branch in recent years, is one reason the nation's politics are out of balance. Capretta argues that Congress could begin to reassert itself by building stronger institutional support for the development of specific legislative responses to emerging issues and problems. The legislative branch has steadily lost power to the executive branch because it does not have the capacity to develop and implement legislative policies that can competently address the many challenges that present themselves in a modern economy. House and Senate members need more help from true experts to fulfill their constitutional roles.

Rules and regulations by federal agencies, which many now call the administrative state, are quickly supplanting Congress as the principal source of the rules that American citizens and businesses have to obey. Peter Wallison argues that the power of the administrative state must be reined in if we are to remain a nation where the rule of law prevails. The actions of administrative agencies such as the Justice Department must not go beyond what Congress authorized, and the courts should enforce this limit.

Highlighting the problems with the current budget process through public hearings and developing some creative ideas for reform would be progress for budget reform at this point, argues James Capretta. He proposes that the joint committee should consider three ideas to improve the current process. First, they should allow the budget resolution to set statutory caps on appropriated spending. Second, they should scale back the time devoted to passing annual appropriations bills. Finally, Capretta argues that Congress should build a long-term focus into the budget process.

Testimony: The budget resolution: Content, timeliness, and enforcementJames C. Capretta | Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform The current federal budget process hinders Congress' ability to make timely and orderly decisions in addressing fiscal challenges. Three solutions could change the role of the budget resolution and reform the process.

The congressional budget process: A brief primer James C. Capretta | AEI Economic Perspectives James Capretta discusses what the role of the budget request is, what the congressional budget looks like in theory, and what it looks like in reality, as well as several other key features of the congressional budget process. Capretta argues that the current process was written for a time when appropriations spending was dominant; it does not work as well with so much of the federal budget devoted to spending that occurs automatically on entitlement programs. Further, he concludes that the current process does not facilitate executive-legislative agreement on budgetary aggregates, which is an important reason for instability and uncertainty in federal finances.

Republicans who want spending restraint probably represent only about 10 to 15 percent of the total Republican-voting electorate, but without their support Republicans cannot win. That gives the fiscal-restraint advocates a strong hand to play, if they play it correctly.Read More

​Transparency for Congress' ScorekeepersMatt Jensen | National Affairs Two of the most important and powerful agencies of the federal government are barely known to the American public. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation are Congress' scorekeepers. The assumptions made by the CBO and the JCT, and the assessments they produce, shape nearly every federal policy debate. These projections come to be treated as facts, shaping the way various policy proposals are understood and debated.

Max Boot writes: Bolton is right that Trump’s policies have been more conventional than expected, but he is wrong to ascribe this development to insidious foreign policy elites. President Trump is simply being forced to acknowledge the complex realities that he refused to grapple with on the campaign trail. - Commentary